The Legal Foundation of our Republic

Chairman Gerberry, Ranking member Daniels, members of the State Government Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to come and present sponsor testimony for House Concurrent Resolution 11. I also would like to thank Representative Jordan for his collaboration and sponsorship of this resolution.

We all are aware of the importance of the U.S. Constitution as the legal foundation of our republic, I do not have to tell you the dire implications of one level of government ignoring some, or all, of this document. Our Constitution has served us well for over two hundred and twenty years, in part, because of the great respect and adherence to it by both the federal government and the respective states. It is true that since itâ€™s ratification in 1789, the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted by some of the most brilliant minds in our nationâ€™s history.

One question that deeply divided the political thought of the founders was how many powers were to be granted to a centralized government and what authorities were to be retained by the states. This discussion has continued through the course of history and it continues still today.

The fear of a strong centralized government arose, in part, from the unfair policies and taxation established by the rule of the British crown. Policies and taxation over which the American colonists had no say. Some of the founders such as James Madison believed that the federal government would never become too powerful because the people, with these memories so vividly in their minds, would not allow it. After many months of debate, the Constitution was ratified, but not before it was agreed that a Bill of Rights be immediately added. What resulted were ten amendments to the Constitution that guarantees the rights of individual citizens and states alike. These included the security and guarantee of our most precious freedoms; those of speech, religion, press, and fair trials among others. Included in this same Bill of Rights is the Tenth Amendment, which reads:

â€œThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the peopleâ€

I firmly believe the Constitution sought to ensure that all levels of government in our republic derive its power from the people, and the Tenth Amendment preserves this local control even in the face of the federal government.

As representatives of the people of Ohio, we play an important role between the constituencies of our districts and the state and federal governments. It is not only our right but it is our responsibility as Ohioâ€™s elected officials to question the federal government and work towards the protection and preservation of a long established and sacred republican framework.

Fellow members of the Ohio House and representatives sitting on this committee, we are the ones that must take a stand to preserve the delicate balance between federal and state jurisdiction laid forth in our Constitution. While there are many powers and responsibilities granted to the federal government from which the states are prohibited, all others are retained by the states or to the people, according to our Bill of Rights.

We must ensure that the federal government is adhering to the responsibilities set forth for them in the Constitution, and not arbitrarily assuming powers outside their delegated authority. This resolution, perhaps more commonly known as the state sovereignty resolution seeks to do just that. For many years now, the Federal government has demonstrated to the states and the American people time and again negligence in following their Constitutional authority. An authority delegated to them by the states! While the federal government continues to serve an important role within the framework of our federal republic, we the people cannot, and must not, allow it to continue to violate the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights any longer through the use of mandates and other regulations upon the states.

Some of the most prevalent examples of this can be found in the language of recently enacted laws of Congress. Laws such as the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act, which mandated education reforms on the states while severely underfunding the costs to the states. The REAL ID Act of 2005 that mandated to the states the minimum information that would be required on driverâ€™s licenses. The list goes on and on. Are the American people and the various states not capable of providing sufficient education regulations knowing that we in Ohio know how best to educate the young people in our communities? Or that we cannot decide what minimum information is necessary on the driverâ€™s licenses our state issues? Most recently, there is word that the Federal government may transfer international terrorists from Guantanamo to our state. Congressman Steve Austria has introduced legislation to prohibit this from occurring, but I ask you, is that not our decision to make?

We took an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States and are duty- bound to ask ourselves, are these and countless other examples really within the Constitutional authority of the federal government and by our silence do we relinquish our constitutionally reserved rights to an entity we the states created?

Additionally, this resolution is about making sure that the federal government does not financially cripple our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. According to a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office, the proposed federal budget includes a deficit of nearly $1.7 trillion. Even with annual budget deficits being reduced in subsequent years, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the total cumulative budget deficit between 2010 and 2019 will be $9.3 trillion. A deficit this size has not been seen since the end of World War II.

While the current economic circumstances deserve consideration, we should not be satisfied with the federal governmentâ€™s rapid and unconstitutional expansion beyond the scope of its authorities delegated to it by the states. I cannot in good conscious support these and other measures enacted by the federal government that will prove to be an encumbrance to us and subsequent generations.

In closing, there has always been discussion of this topic in American politics dating back to the founders, and this resolution will not end this discussion. Make no mistake, Ohio is, and will continue to be, a proud member state of the United States of America. This resolution contains no secessionist language unlike similar resolutions proposed in other states, but rather seeks to have the federal government live within its constitutional authority. HCR 11 simply claims Ohioâ€™s rightful sovereignty over all powers not granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution, and resolves that all federal legislation directing states to comply with regulations or lose funding be prohibited or repealed.

I ask you to carefully consider HCR 11 and realize that this is not a Democrat or Republican resolution. This is an American resolution that simply asks that we follow the constitution. Thank you again for the opportunity to give testimony on this very important resolution.

Jarrod B. Martin [send him email] is a State Representative for Ohio’s 70th District.

9 thoughts on “The Legal Foundation of our Republic”

Resolutions are fine, but since the federal government typically has ignored the Constitution, there is little reason to suppose it will now suddenly have a change of heart. Even if it did moderate its usurpations for a time, it is almost a mathematical certainty that it will renew them again at a later time. Thus, after all is said and done, we must ask what the next step after resolutions is?

If secession is to be avoided and the union preserved, the States should demand a Constitutional Convention to take the matter in hand and restore the balance of powers between the States and federal govenment. With 35 states presently considering 10th Amendment Resolutions, there is a sufficient number to require a Convention for proposing Amendments to reign a self-serving and inept federal power that has brought the nation to the brink of ruin and shown its is incapable of governing aright. We take the keys to the family car from teen agers when they demonstrate they lack maturity to use the privilege responsibly and obey the law. Congress is no different. To ignor its reckless and irresponsible behaivor can only involve us all in ruin. It should give our conscience no qualms to reign them in. Indeed, it is the only patriotic and responsible course remaining to preseve liberty and save the Union.

Patrick, I agree. I have heard people nay-say the notion of having a con-con, and I am not so sure why it is thought to be a bad idea. I do realize the difficulty in prevailing upon so many states. But other than that, I don’t know what the negatives would be.

I know Michael Boldin thinks it is a bad idea. Maybe he can expound further.

Well, I think the number one reason why it’s a bad idea – in my opinion – is that I don’t want to change the constitution from how it is. Changing the constitution is not my goal…..

Secondly, if the federal government doesn’t follow the simple rules in the constitution already, what makes anyone think that new amendments will be followed for long either?

To me, even good constitutional amendments (which I find highly unlikely in a society that believes a far-off government should be the cure for virtually everything), are nothing more than a short-term band-aid. In time, even if not in yours or mine, we’ll still end up with a federal government doing what they do today. Violating virtually every principle of limited government.

Instead, it’s my belief that for our future, and for the future of our children and grandchildren, we should be spending our energy to find a way to create a culture of non-violent resistance as a way to rein in this runaway central government. Saying no to unconstitutional federal “laws” is just the blueprint. Whether it’s resisting the drug war, or saying no to real id, or refusing stimulus money, or any of the new “firearms freedom acts,” or any number of things, there’s a lot that can be done…..and I believe we’re seeing just the very beginning.

So far as I know, there is no rational basis for objection. About 20 years ago there was a move afoot to try and change our system of govenrment to a parlimentary type like England has. Many conservatives (John Birch Society, etc) were very against the idea of a con-con for fear that “any thing could happen.” However, this fear is really unfounded. Any Amendment proposed in a con-con has to have a 3/4 vote of the states before it is ratified, so there is no reason for alarm. We are at a crisis in our country. If we do nothing, we face almost certain ruin. Ron Paul says the dollar is on the verge of collapse. Where will we be then? What about the plan for North American Union? Where will we be if that is thrust upon us by Washington insiders? I fully support secession before allowing ourselves to be made slaves to an all-powerful central Obamunist government or North American Union, but I can see no harm in trying to fix the nation first by taking away Congress keys to the family car!

I have been working on this for a couple days to show how easy it really would be to fix the problems with the federal government. When I get the article developing this complete, I will submit it for posting. Meanwhile, study this and see if it doesn’t answer the problem.

The biggest sources of abuse vis-a-vis the states are the General Welfare Clause, the Commerce Clause, and the 14th Amendment. Thus, we do not need to change the Constitution, but RESTORE it and to provide a mechanism by which the States can enforce it. Section two, which give the States the power to enforce the Amendment by legislation is a guarantee to the power of nullification. Thus, there is no need to rely on Congress to police itself. See if I am not right!

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

1. Strict adherence to the letter of the law being necessary for the preservation of a written constitution, the laws and Constitution of the United States shall be enforced according to their original intent, and not otherwise. Save and except the second Amendment, the first eight Amendments shall not be construed to be incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment or otherwise made applicable to the States. Citizenship under Fourteenth Amendment shall not extend to the children of persons present in the United States in violation of law. Congressional power under Article 1, Sec. 8 to regulate commerce among the several States shall be limited in all cases to the measure of its power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. The federal government possesses only limited, enumerated powers. Congress shall not have power to Tax or Spend under the General Welfare Clause except in accordance with its enumerated powers.

2. The States shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

It would be nice to clarify the Constitution by amendment. I’ll grant you that. Of course, some of the provisions you put above would, in fact, change it. For example, all people born on US soil are US citizens. That was the original intent.

The “anchor baby” issue has been prevalent these days, and so I can see the reason for wanting to amend. Nonetheless, this issue is not as easy as most would like to believe.

There are millions of “anchor babies” that were born 20, 30 and 50 or more years ago to illegals who immigrated here. These now-adult anchor babies who’ve been here all their lives for many decades have children, granchildren, and so on….

I think a change in law would have to give deference to some sort of laches principle in order to do justice.

For all you know, you are the decendant of an anchor baby from England, Ireland, Germany, Poland, or any other country. All it would take is one of your grandparents or great-grandparents to have come here in violation of immigration laws, which of course, happened way back when, too.

It seems extreamly doubtful that it was the intention at the time of enactment/ratification that children born to persons here in violation of law were intended to be rewarded with citizenship. The intention rather was to give the slave population citizenship, which they did not possess before. In declaring the intended purpose of this provision, it is not conteplated that we go back in time to reexamine everybodies claim to citizenship. Amendments are prospective, not retrospective.

This Republic of ours is being systematically destroyed, and if we do not regain our Constitutional defenses soon, even our own historians will have no recollections nor references left to ponder, as to what the hell a Republic, ever was.

This federal government will continue to unilaterally dispose of its own constitutional place, and rightful function, until we finally come to realize that talk is worthless, when effective actions are needed.

The Bill of Rights never were meant to apply to the States but just the federal government incorporation is an Un-Constitutional ruling derived from the 14th Amendment relatively recently too.
That is why State constitution have their own such protection of such rights.